Movie #54 House of Games

This is an earmuffs edition of my reviews. I thought that would be fitting considering I am reviewing David Fucking Mamet's first film as a director; House of Games. For those of you that don't know who Mamet is, he is largely known as a playwright.  He has however ventured into films as both a screen writer and director. His 1992 film Glenngary Glenn Ross is one of my all time favorite movies.

Mamet is part of a book detailing different writing and directing styles. He is all about the words. To him actors are props. I have read that Mamet once told a very prominent actor that was trained in the method style of acting to "Stand up straight and read your fucking lines. No one can understand your mumbling. I wrote a brilliant script and you are fucking it all up."

House of Games is a con man movie. It stars Lindsay Crouse (Mamet's real world wife at the time of filming) as a therapist who gets involved with a group of con men by chance (or was it planed?). Mamet's theory of acting is quite evident here. Crouse displays all the grace and eloquence of a chainsaw. The first 20 minutes of this film is about as subtle as a baseball bat to the face. There are a few exchanges between therapist and patient that felt like I was watching bad high school actors.

If I had to describe this film in one word it would be "pulp". Mamet writes what Elmore Leonard is too embarrassed to write.  Accented with profanity the dialogue is course and raw.  If this film had been made 30 years earlier Barbara Stanwyck and Sterling Hayden would have played the lead roles.  It's not noir because even though it has some of the characteristics as a noir would, House of Games is too slick.  The conflict is muted due to the con that is being pulled.  The stakes are absent.

House of Games can not avoid the trappings of a typical con movie.  The viewers are instantly put on alert to watch for the con.  I fell for the first con hook line and sinker.  This really made me watch for the next one so that I wouldn't be the sucker.  To my disappointment I caught on the the second and much larger con right away.  I wondered how long it would take before they started to revel the con to the main character.  It was so obvious to me that I began to think that the con WAS going to be on me.  I thought that the film makers were making a conscious decision to make the con easily recognizable to lure its viewers in and then con them out at the ending.  I was wrong.  The big con can be spotted 100 miles away.

The end of this film is ludicrous.  The actions of the main character was never explained nor were we given any inclination that this person would be capable of performing such an act.  Sorry for the secrecy, but this is an earmuff edition of the blog, not a spoiler one.


The acting in this thing was terrible.  Crouse gave line reading after line reading.  Joe Mantegna was the same way.  He plays the lead con man.  I actually thought that the film might have been trying to make a statement about the current condition of acting in films.  Now I just think it was bad.  I love Mamet and if he ever read this I am sure he would send a couple of hard pipe hitting muther fuckers to rip my arms off, but I thought even the script was bad.  It was hackneyed and cliche.  Calling women "broads" and "babe", the peripheral banter in the poker game, the "tough-as-nails" chick lines seemed pigeonholed in and artificial. 


This might sound like a review of a bad movie, but some how it worked for me.  I had a good time watching it and I am glad I have seen it.  I don't think I will be going back to it anytime soon, but it is a decent flick overall.  I give House of Games a 3/5 star rating.  Check out the Trailer Park to see for yourself.

Movie #45 The Brothers Bloom

There is a film maker a lot of people haven't heard of.  His name is Rian Johnson.  He has two features to his name.  The first is called Brick.  It was a critical darling including this critic.  It was a very atmospheric noir thriller set in a modern day high school.  What really sets this film apart is the dialogue.  It is a mix of current teen slang mixed with 40's gumshoe movie speak.  The other identificating factor is Johnson style and the way he puts his vision onto screen.  Brick is also the film that in my opinion re-launched Joesph Gordon Levitt's career.  Who has a very brief cameo in the film.

But that is a review for another day.  This review is about his sophomore project The Brothers Bloom.  It is the story of globe trotting con artist brothers attempting their final con (of course).  The Brother Bloom are played by Adrien Brody and Mark Ruffalo.  Their non English speaking third part is Bang Bang.  An Asian explosive expert played by Rinko Kikuchi.  Their final mark is Penelope played by Rachel Weisz. 

This is a globe trotting movie for sure.  They visit Montenegro, Prague, Mexico, Romania and a slew of other places.  Johnson's camera work can best be described as playful in this movie.  It is adventurous and bold and can at times be a little silly.  There are moments where I have had to watch a few times to even catch what he was going for.  I am glad that I did, but perhaps a slightly better film maker could have conveyed his message a little clearer.  I'd like to note that the 3 con artists in the movie are all very well played.  This is the movie where I first developed my minor man-crush on Mark Ruffalo.  I will say that Weisz kind of wore a little thin on me.  She was adequate, but I don't think she was the right choice for the role.  Keano Reeves and play the dumbest guy in the room.  She can't.

Do you know how hard it is to make a con artist film now a days?  The views of movies are so climatically smart.  Movies like The Sting, Paper Moon and House of Games have put the audience in the know.  Everyone is ion on the con.  Once you revile that it is a con movie the viewers immediately go on the defensive.  No one wants to be con'ed.  Every plot point from then on is questioned.  "Is this for real or part of the con", "what is this characters motives" and "who benefits from this situation" all become question that the viewers ask themselves.   

So how do you get around that?  There is the double cross but that is a dangerous technique.  If you don't provide the audience with the clues to put it together they will feel cheated at the end.  This practice was used wonderfully in The Usual Suspects.  I know the ending and I am still surprised when the final twist happens.  There is the red herring but here again with such a knowledgeable contingency it is becoming harder and harder to pull this off.  So what film makers do is they add con's on to con's on to con's.  The problem here is you run the risk of confusing the audience leaving them again unsatisfied. 

So how do you get around this?  What Mr. Johnson did was make a con movie that wasn't about the con.  I can't spoil anything here or I would defeat the purpose of the review which is to get you to take an interest in this movie.  What Johnson does is he wraps you up in a cocoon of romance, intrigue, travel, beauty, exotic characters and danger.  At times you forget that you are watching a con movie all together.

Then towards the end when the Persian rug is pulled out from under your feet you are left satisfied.  Then when it is reveled that there is a second rug under the first rug and that gets yanked out from under you, knocking you on you ass, you feel enlightened.  Light you have experienced something that you rarely do.  You were outsmarted by a movie.  

There is a line in the film that I think perfectly sums up the entire movie.  While looking at some distorted photos taken from the marks pinhole camera Bloom says "It's the lie that tells the truth".  My girlfriend had never even heard of this movie and she really enjoyed it.  I give The Brothers Bloom a solid 4/5 stars.  Check out the link below for the trailer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBuPI4m4pO8